Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. Californiagreen2 sentences2024See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 . 2024See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 . | 3 | 8 |
Bledsoe v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Although Counsel misstated the contents of the brief, because she provided a copy of the Anders brief with her letter to Sansom, Sansom was able to read and discern the substance of the brief for himself. 3 178 S.W.3d 824 , 827–28 (Tex. Crim. 2019See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 n.6. | 2 | 3 |
Sowels v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Counsel's Anders brief "should be accompanied by a `Notice of Filing of Anders Brief'" to "facilitate identification and processing of the matter by the clerk's office as a possible Anders case." Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 693 . 2002Counsel’s Anders brief “should be accompanied by a ‘Notice of Filing of An-ders Brief ” to “facilitate identification and processing of the matter by the clerk’s office as a possible Anders case.” Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 693 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re Schulmangreen1 sentence2024Id. at 744– 45; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 , 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of C.J., H.T., and B.T., Childrengreen1 sentence2022See In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Childrengreen1 sentence2018After reviewing the record ourselves and after construing counsel’s brief liberally, we agree that the record shows that Father constructively abandoned C.W., who had been in the Department’s care for not less than six months, and that (1) the 3 generally In re A.B., 437 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Tex. 2014) (recognizing appellate court need not detail the evidence if affirming termination judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Meza v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.), overruled on other grounds by Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). 2006See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 691 (TexApp.-Waco 2001, no pet.), overruled on other grounds by Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 688 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
High v. State
green
2 sentences2024Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 2009See id. at 825; High , 573 S.W.2d at 813 . | 2 | 2009–2024 |
In Re JB
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 744– 45; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 , 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mays v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920 , 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort 1 Counsel’s Anders brief here provides only conclusions and no analysis. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stafford v. State
green
1 sentence2020Cf. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 & nn.2–3 (identifying first Anders brief that merely made conclusions as “obviously deficient” and complaining that second Anders brief’s “cursory review of the evidence” was also inadequate). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mitchell v. State
green
1 sentence2019App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 .1 An appellant may challenge a 1 Counsel’s Anders brief identifies potential insufficiency of evidence arguments for three counts of aggravated sexual assault (Counts IV, IX, and XIV) and three counts of indecency with a child (Counts VI, XI, and XVI). 3 holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.